J MOSES Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common questions are involved in all these writ petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 21697 and 24501 of 1997 seek a writ of Habeas Corpus declaring the action of the respondents in continuing to confine the life convicts, i.e., the petitioners, who have completed the sentence of 10 years including remissions as on 15-8-1997 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust, and to direct the respondents to set the petitioners at liberty, the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos 24844 and 31943 of 1997 see'k Writ of Habeas Corpus declaring the continued confinement of the petitioners who have completed 7 years of imprisonment including remissions as on 15-8-1997 as illegal, improper and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to set the petitioners at liberty forthwith; and Writ Petition No. 27753 of 1997 is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to produce the petitioners, who are lodged in Central Prison, Chanchalaguda, and set them at liberty after striking down Clause 4{3) of G.O.Ms.No. 192, dated 11-8-1997 issued by Home (Prisons-C) Department as it is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The brief facts in all these writ petitions are as follows; The petitioners in W.P.Nos. 21697, 24501, 24844 and 31943 are the life convicts and undergoing imprisonment in Rajahmundry Central jail, whereas the petitioner in W.P.No. 27753/97 is the life convict undergoing imprisonment in Chanchalaguda Central Jail, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No. 193, dated 11-8-1997 granting remissions as on 15-8-1997 to certain categories of prisoners and ordering for their release. The grievance of the petitioners in all the writ petitions is that their request for release was not considered by the Government on the ground that they have not completed the actual sentence of seven years eventhough they have completed ten years sentence. The petitioners contended that the so called benefit given to the prisoners under the above said G,O. cannot be worked out and practically no benefit can be given as the two conditions stipulated in Clause 2 (a) and (b) cannot go together. According to them that even if a person is in jail actually for 7 years, he cannot earn remission period of 3 years in his 7 years of imprisonment. The convicts are given five days general remission per month which comes to 60 days in a year and a discretionary remission of 20-30 days in an year is given by the Superintendent of the concerned Central Prison under two categories of remission i.e., (1) good conduct remission of maximum 20 days in an year and (2) special remission of 10 days in an year. Even if the prisoner is in jail for 7 years, the maximum possible remission he gets will be only about 20 months. Hence even if a prisoner is inside for 7 years of sentence including remission. Thus, the petitioners attack the impugned G.O. in so far as it relates to the extent that who have undergone an actual sentence of 7 years and total sentence of 10 years as on 15-8-1997 and seek direction to the respondents to release them forthwith. It is further stated that in similar circumstances, this Court in W.P. No. 2422/95, dated 16-2-1995 wherein release of life convicts who have completed ten years of imprisonment including remission is ordered. It is further submitted that the Government is committed itself by making announcement on the floor of the Assembly to release the prisoners who have completed 7 years including remissions and this news was published in several reputed newspapers also. The petitioner in W.P. No. 27753/97 is the life convict and he challenges the G.O.Ms.No. 192, dated 11-8-1997 in imposing restrictions that the said G.O. shall not apply to the prisoners convicted for the offences u/ss. 120-B, 121 to 130, 359 to 377 and 395 to 402 on various grounds.